Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Holly Cairns - 'Sinn Fein policies aren't left wing'

135

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,358 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Inclined to agree there @Floppybits



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,024 ✭✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    I think you'll find you are detailing the FFG policy for the last 10 years there. But yeah blame the SocDems who have never been on government. I looked at their policies and they actually call for asylum processing to be accelerated.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth house?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    So a wealth tax on €1m. How do you define that? Your house, what you have in the bank, the value of your pension, like say you were a TD?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    Yes, but they want asylum processing to be accelerated to get people in quicker, whereas other people want asylum processing to be accelerated to get the large proportion of chancers out quicker.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,728 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    I think some of the professional backgrounds of politicians benefit from the current setup, which is a factor in it continuing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭itsacoolday


    Good point. A lot of public servants have a pension pot worth over a million when they retire, were they to have had to buy that pension pot themselves like people in private industry have to if they want such a generous pension. Will that be taxed? It would be unfair not to, if a person A has a state guaranteed public sector pension, and person B , instead of paying in to a pension, invests in a buy-to-let property or has a bit of property let out to give him or her some income in their old age.

    It would be unfair to wealth tax person B but not person A.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    Public servants have a defined benefit pension, the value of which is dependent on how long you live. But women live longer than men, so a retired female primary school headmistress could be over the limit, but a headmaster would not. Such a low limit as €1m would open a complete can of worms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,831 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    You are correct, thankfully the SD aren't in Govt.

    The low amount of deportations of failed AS can't be be blamed on them.

    However, when the current Govt does actually deport some failed AS, like on a few occasions during the last year, the SocDems specifically objected to those deportations.

    Similarly, Sinead Gibney stated that the reason AS don't have travel documents is that they are in such a rush to leave their origin country.

    Of course, the TV show presenter did not challenge her.

    The actual truth is that the AS deliberately discard their travel documents, but the SocDems live in a fantasy world.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,831 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Great, that's one thing I can agree with, faster processing of AS.

    Our target should be the 24hrs managed by the Swiss, although one to two weeks may be more realistic.

    AS can work after six months, so if this is achieved, no AS should ever get near the labour market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭dmakc


    AS processing times are a red herring. The faster you process AS, the faster new applicants will come in.

    It's a well oiled system, more akin to a tap than a bottleneck.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,300 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    At least everyone can agree that quicker processing times is what is needed urgently. What frustrates me the most is just how lax the whole immigration system is, from when people arrive to processing. Its madness to think that when someone claims Asylum, whether they have documentation or no documentation is that they are allowed in and are then free to roam the country and in 6 months free to get work, you have to ask yourself what is the point of having a system if all some has to do is arrive in the country. I have more respect for those who come here illegally to work and don't bother going the asylum route and just get a job and look after themselves, than those chancing their arms.

    We really need to tighten up how asylum seekers are housed when they come and what they and can't do, they way I look at it is, if you are waiting on being processed then you are neither in or out of the country but in a holding zone and therefore should not be allowed roam the country or seek employment till the process is finished.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,786 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Bacik said the Seanad was "pale, stale and male" in an interview a few years ago.

    Now if the sexes were reversed I wonder how would a comment like that have gone down with women in the Labour Party and their colleagues in the SDs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,024 ✭✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Aragh stop. That's just factual. The Seanad is an absolute joke. That the best you could find?

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth house?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,307 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    This. I don't want a dog-eat-dog society like the US, but I also don't want an oppressive communist regime like North Korea. Americans seem to think that it's one or the other but there is a middle ground where compromises are made on both sides, but it keeps the vast majority of people happy. That's what we need right now.

    As for Holly Cairns, when she bleated in the Dáil about being from the first generation that's less well off than her parents, that's where she lost me. That's an Americanism too, we didn't have a "baby boomer" generation here. She was born in 1989 and I'm sure that most of us know that the majority of parents in Ireland in 1989 weren't exactly well off. Emigration was still through the roof.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,300 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    When the Soc Dems were formed by Roisin Shortall, Catherine Murphy and to a lesser extent Stephen Donnelly, I was delighted. We'd seen Roisin Shortall stand up to James O'Reilly and FG and their crony ways and I thought I was going to get a party that I could vote but how wrong was I. Very disappointed in the direction the Soc Dems have gone with the virtue signalling, very off putting, especially with the likes of Cairns, Gannon and a few others, all they need is AO'R to join them and they will be complete.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,786 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    So if Mick McDowell said the women in the Seanad were pale, stale and female you think the feminists would have nothing to say about that 🤔



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,555 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Holly like all TDs receive a basic salary of €117,113 She also has extremely generous holidays, and other benefits like maternity care which are much more generous than most other countries.

    If she says in the Dail about being from the first generation that's less well off than her parents, I do not think so. I remember the 1980s well. No central heating in many houses. No takeaway coffees @ 4 quid a go. Our airports were only a small fraction as busy: nobody going off for stag or hen weekends abroad etc. Cars very basic: I remember having a car in the 1980s without a radio. Phoning long distance or foreign phone calls was very very expensive. Very few restaurants in Ireland: most people could not afford to eat out. The salary of the prime minister of Spain is €90,000 per year, and I'm sure he does a lot more than Holly Cairns, and has a lot more responsibility 24/7. If Holly K was a true socialist she would refuse most of her salary or give it to charity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thenuisance


    It is all kind of arbitrary as most parties in this country are reactive, creating policies on the fly to satisfy particular sections of the electorate. It's a consequence of STV in multi-seat constituencies - which I am very much in favour of.

    In making the judgement that I have I've based it on the policies, history, membership and support of the parties. Labour has always focussed on left wing policies, at least in it's manifestos. It's membership has also been in line with these policies - e.g. Trade Unions and co-operatives. It's aberrations have been the consequence of bad decisions made in government. The Social Democrats are an offshoot of Labour - the initial creation of the SDs resulted in a party that was, I believe, to the left of Labour - but in its present incarnation probably slightly to the right of it - but I wouldn't say there's much in it. I would believe the memberships of the two parties to be people of similar views but of different age profiles - SDs are younger, Labour older. At representative level - SDs are much more 'in line' with policy , Labour not so much but policy differences are less than they have been in the past. Support reflects the age profiles - and supporters also seem to be aligned with the parties policies.

    Sinn Fein have primarily focussed (correctly in my view) on re-unification. Sinn Fein was historically Republican and Socialist but it has broaden it's policy focus to become more populist - both in the 6 counties and in the Republic. As a result it has a membership that has come from all viewpoints. That's not a bad thing - especially if your aim is to be a populist party. SF membership spans the generations. This is reflected at representative level where there are diversities of views on issues and it is, I think, fair to say that Sinn Fein has left and centrist representatives in their public representation.

    I think there is sufficient common ground between those parties that can deliver important social policies in (e.g.) housing, health and education that would make a significant difference to the lives of ordinary people. For that reason alone I think they need to stand on a common platform at the next election and I believe the public would support them.

    The issue for me is that I don't see them agreeing on a platform that addresses the fundamental issue of wealth inequality that has created many of the problems that we have. But we need to start somewhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,081 ✭✭✭almostover


    I'm a very similar age to Holly and have a significantly better quality of life than my parents when they were my age. Neither had to money to go to university, they never went on a holiday outside of the UK and Ireland, honeymooned in Ireland, varnished the concrete floor in their house when they moved in because they didn't have money to floor the place, never had any car newer than about 5 years old. Growing up as a child in the 90s, eating out was rare, remember having catering done by family members at home for my communion etc. We also never really ate steak at home when I was a child, it was too expensive.

    My parents also experienced 18% interest rates on their mortgage in the late 80s.

    Access to housing was a little easier but not really more affordable. The quality of housing was vastly different too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,098 ✭✭✭Glenomra


    What do you think their agreed policy on migration to Ireland will be.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thenuisance


    My reasoning for separating off the family home from other wealth taxes was based on a few things.

    Property has a completely irrational hold on people in this country (and the UK). Sheer political expediency would be a good enough reason to separate off the family home from the calculation if you wanted to introduce a wealth tax.

    For almost all of us the family home is not investment - we derive value from it as a home but it provides us no income. The value that our home might have is based on a capricious market.

    Most of us take out a mortgage to buy our family home so for most of our life we don't own our family home - we only own a part of it.

    Our family situations change but we generally have a deeper attachment to our home than we would to an investment asset.

    Absolutely we need to stop people using the loopholes to push all their wealth into the family home. I think there are solutions to those issues but traditionally this country has not been good at closing loopholes that the wealthy use to avoid tax.

    Downsizing is also an issue. Most people want to stay in the area that they are currently living in. If you live alone in a 3 bed house in Crumlin there isn't realistically any where to move to in the area that's not the same size or the same price. There are plenty of young people who want to live there so you will have no problem selling but where will you move to?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thenuisance


    Inheritance and Capital gains taxes are certainly capable of reducing inequality but they are long term solutions that only address a part of the problem. They are equally susceptible the kind of avoidance measures that have frustrated the implementation of wealth taxes. There is an entire industry set up around this - Google 'Wealth defence industry'.

    Wealth taxes are a 'point in time' tax that are much more effective because, given time , wealth can be hidden. Wealth taxes can only tackle wealth held within a particular legal/fiscal boundary and to implement them requires legislation that encompasses those places that the wealth can be transferred to and from. At present wealth is easily (and instantaneously) transferred across national boundaries even within the one fiscal/legal entity (e.g. the EU). That is the primary reason why wealth taxes fail. An important pre-requisite would be legislation that creates a single taxation rate and assesment mechanism within the EU. In addition all of the parties to transfers in or out of the EU fiscal area (personal and corporate) would have to be identifiable. All countries are complicit in transfers in and out of tax havens using shell companies with nominee directors - that needs to come to an end for more reasons than a wealth tax.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Holly Cairns has never claimed to be a true socialist. That is not what social democracy is supposed to be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭DataDude


    This is basically just populism in varies guises. ‘I support a wealth tax as long as it’s not my wealth’ shouted by a sufficiently large number of people until it becomes so narrow that it’s pointless.

    It’s why we have our current predicament with a far too narrow a tax base. And taken the extreme, look at our neighbours in UK literally falling apart as common sense economics get shot down by populist takes. Any suggestion a paid off home is not an asset is an insult to all the young people being hammered by rents. A paid off home is the single biggest indicator of your level of wealth and comfort in Ireland.

    c.70% of Irish wealth is in property. A crazy portion to exclude out the gate for a wealth tax. Add on another large chunk will be tied up in public sector or DC pensions which people will (fairly) argue they can’t touch for decades. Then another chunk will be in unlisted companies which are hard to value and challenging to monetise in the short term.

    You’re then left with just people with €1m+ in the stock market which is a vanishingly tiny amount of people who are usually pretty internationally mobile anyway.

    Property taxes are the best form of wealth tax because:

    1. They’re not productive. All you can do to avoid them is sell up and move somewhere cheaper which is generally good for wider society
    2. They’re stable and wide based
    3. They can’t be hidden or moved
    4. They’re easily valued
    5. Tax can be easily deferred for lower income households forever by putting a charge on the property (with low interest) to address liquidity challenges
    6. Any debt associated is directly attached by the bank and can be deducted from its market value easily


    There is a pretty strong rationale for Property taxes to be the ONLY wealth tax.
    And hugely increased from its current levels to lower income taxes/fund services (any economist who looks at our tax policy will agree and it’s where most other countries have gotten to as pointed out by other posters).

    Treating it more favourably than all other assets and further entrenching the Irish obsession with hoarding wealth in homes would be actual insanity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 673 ✭✭✭PixelCrafter


    In my view most of Ireland’s problems are created by a distorted and often manipulated property market - absolutely everything comes down to insane property prices, lack of availability and systems that seem designed for facilitate NIMBYism and have little to do with “planning.”

    It’s contributed to a huge social divide between those who’ve access to capital in the sense of housing and those who don’t not and it’s far more than a general wealth thing. It’s very specific and it’s supported by a large % of the electorate who enjoy their ever increasing paper wealth.

    You also see it with the total inability / unwillingness to tackle urban dereliction - any sane system would impose heavy penalties on people sitting on crumbling urban properties, but we don’t - we just flatly refuse to enforce any of that due to regulatory capture.

    A party that will realistically tackle that head on will get my vote and I don’t think that needs convoluted wealth taxes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭An Claidheamh


    Holly Cairns is not left wing.

    Soft left soccer Mom, afraid of a SF left wing Republican government, along with her FF husband no doubt.

    We have a middle class SU phony left wing party before - Labour - and they wolves in sheep’s clothing.


    Holly wants coalition with FF/FG just like Labour - then on to an nice gig at an NGO.

    She does not want an alternative government.

    SF do not owe these hangers on a job, Soc Dems are pink fingered Blueshirts



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭An Claidheamh


    Holly Cairns - Twitter, girl power, boo men, abortion.

    Stands for nothing substantial.

    Left wing my a*se!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 963 ✭✭✭thegame983


    The only thing the government have going for them these days is the absolute state of the opposition.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    SF right wing on immigration?

    I dont think so.

    That was the main reason they lost a lot of support.

    They maintained a left wing liberal approach to immigration, as you would expect from a socialist party.

    That isn't what a lot of their voters wanted and they lost support because of it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,300 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    And that is not a good thing for the country. People perform best when under pressure or they have something on the line. This government are under no pressure, even though they should be, and most of the government TD's will probably be returned if there was an election, but not because they are steller candidates and top level performers but because the opposition are offering nothing.



Advertisement